Poll: religon: a 7 point scale

[Lusty]

I won't try converting you, but assuming there's either a Christian God or nothing, mathematically speaking you really should believe in God. Look-up Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's wager doesn't really work though does it? Mainly because it assumes belief is a choice. I can't 'make' myself, or anyone else for that matter, believe or not beleive in anything. Logic can't defeat faith.

Which is why trying to convert someone to atheism, or religion I suppose, is pointless. You can only arrive there on your own.

Edit: Damn, ninja'd by 4 posts! Slightly different counter though I suppose.

 

[Emperorpeng]

It's not really a diagnosed thing. I just know that God helps me cope.

 

[I Stomp on Kittens]

I'm at a 7

 

[Nickolai77]

I won't try converting you, but assuming there's either a Christian God or nothing, mathematically speaking you really should believe in God. Look-up Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's wager doesn't really work though does it? Mainly because it assumes belief is a choice. I can't 'make' myself, or anyone else for that matter, believe or not beleive in anything. Logic can't defeat faith.

I would also point out that pascals wager does not take other religions into account, nor does it provide a "good" reason to believe in God.- If you only believe in God because its a safer bet in case he does not exist, would your faith mean anything??

I'm a 6, we can only say if something exists or not if we can empirically "check" if it exists. God is not empirical, so you can not check his existence, this leaves you with rather indirect methods of finding out if he exists or not. Based on what we know from the the physical world- (evolution, evil, the human brain) its fairly safe to say that the chances of a meta-physical God existing, in the classic thiest form, are slim.

 

[Fightgarr]

Frankly I believe that the universe is far too absurd for it to be any possibility the human mind can comprehend. The inherent problem with religion debates, for me, is that everyone is trying to come up with the answer that makes the most sense to them. To that I respond: "The universe does not make sense". Of course, you could argue that the universe follows the laws of physics and science and whatnot, but even those are absurd concepts on a fundamental scale. What am I? I am experiencing things, that's all I know. What I'm experiencing does something called "making sense" wherein my surroundings are connected with concepts in my brain but since experience is inherently absurd there is no point in me arguing what will and what will not happen and what is and what is not the origin of the universe. For all I know, my birth was the origin of this universe as we know it.

I do have another problem with religion threads. Its that many people feel the need to argue their beliefs. This is assuming that people have come to the thread with their mind not made up, looking for someone to tell them what to believe. A simple statement of beliefs and a discussion as to why is fine. But when it comes to actual debating, it seems ludicrous that either side is in the right or wrong, and that either side will convince anyone of anything. For the record, most people who come to a religion thread have made up their mind.

 

[HentMas]

WOW, look at this, its a religion tread that i think is going fairly civil

i voted other because i dont enjoy being labeled as anything (well, mainly because my belief changes rather quicly)

but as of now, i know there is a God but not embed in any religion

 

[anNIALLator]

it cannot create the diverse systems that are common out of thin air. Its like saying gills directly evolved to lungs and anything in between that jump was non-beneficial so the organism dies and there is no change.

A set of gills which could also breathe air would be very beneficial to fish living in shallow water likely to dry up, or that live in poor oxygen water, which can jump out of water to escape predators, which might have to leave the water to reach a spawning pool. Just look at the fish that can survive outside water nowadays, like the climbing perch.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

All you got to ask yourself is would an atheist fly an airplane into a building?

Encase you're wondering what the answer is, 9/11.

I thought the answer was a retard. Sounds like something a ZERO would do or someone with no will of their own who believes what other people say for no reasonable reason.

7:17 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq3T28-1rfw]

 

[anNIALLator]

Whoa starting to get off topic. Please don't start with the "Your side is wrong because they have killed more people" blah blah blah. When you go in that direction it always turns a civil discussion into a flame war about hitler or whoever.

 

[bladeofdarkness]

you CANT actually mean what you just said
what about santa, or the tooth fairy, or the flying spaghetti monster

when two sides are arguing, the answer does NOT, by default, lies somewhere in the middle
its quite possible for one side to be plain wrong

Of course one side is wrong, there is always one side that's wrong when it comes to an arguement. Doesn't mean that that the answer's obvious though.

This is especialy true when arguing about whether or not something (such as God or Dragons) exist. How can you actually prove that they don't exist? If they don't exist then there's no proof that they don't exist, so it's impossible to actually prove that they don't exist.

the claim that god exist demands proof to verify such a claim
and so long as such proof does not exist or is not presented, there is no requirement to dis-prove it
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
and "the burden of proof lies always with he who asserts, not he who denies"

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

I won't lie, this won't last long. I'm not going to be so nasty as to say report and move on, but I would rather not see this descend into the same state every other religion thread ends up.

Heh--250+ comments and eight pages later, thread is still going...

Haha, yeah, I noticed it as I opened up the front page. I guess we really can have a civil religion thread. However this thread doesn't promote discussion, ergo it doesn't count in my opinion. This seems to be a simple question where you can give a simple answer.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

you CANT actually mean what you just said
what about santa, or the tooth fairy, or the flying spaghetti monster

when two sides are arguing, the answer does NOT, by default, lies somewhere in the middle
its quite possible for one side to be plain wrong

Of course one side is wrong, there is always one side that's wrong when it comes to an arguement. Doesn't mean that that the answer's obvious though.

This is especialy true when arguing about whether or not something (such as God or Dragons) exist. How can you actually prove that they don't exist? If they don't exist then there's no proof that they don't exist, so it's impossible to actually prove that they don't exist.

the claim that god exist demands proof to verify such a claim
an so long as such proof does not exist, there is no requirement to dis-prove it
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

But so does the claim that God doesn't exist.

Whilst there is no requirement to dis-prove the idea of God's existance, it still doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.

Whilst your arguement is a valid one, it is also one that can be turned on itself.

 

[bladeofdarkness]

you CANT actually mean what you just said
what about santa, or the tooth fairy, or the flying spaghetti monster

when two sides are arguing, the answer does NOT, by default, lies somewhere in the middle
its quite possible for one side to be plain wrong

Of course one side is wrong, there is always one side that's wrong when it comes to an arguement. Doesn't mean that that the answer's obvious though.

This is especialy true when arguing about whether or not something (such as God or Dragons) exist. How can you actually prove that they don't exist? If they don't exist then there's no proof that they don't exist, so it's impossible to actually prove that they don't exist.

the claim that god exist demands proof to verify such a claim
an so long as such proof does not exist, there is no requirement to dis-prove it
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

But so does the claim that God doesn't exist.

Whilst there is no requirement to dis-prove the idea of God's existance, it still doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.

Whilst your arguement is a valid one, it is also one that can be turned on itself.

how can it be turned on itself when it doesnt actually exist in the first place

the argument that there IS a god is the more complex and specific one
since it implys that there IS a god, that he is responsible for the existence of everything, and that he complies with at least ONE of the worlds faiths (cares about sins, answer's prays, etc)
the act of denying this argument is NOT an argument at all
it is simply a DENIAL of an argument

so long as the burden of proof has not been lifted, the benifit of assumption lies with those who say that there ISNT a god
simply because they arent arguing anything, they simply deny a specific argument that the deists make

 

[anNIALLator]

When a rabbit runs through the snow, does it not leave footprints?[/quote]
That's deep...
Sometimes I think about the uncountable amount of life on the planet; it all shares the same atoms and molecules; all those atoms were created in the center of our solar system; and any one of those atoms is billions of years old; and I think there has to be some purpose there has to be a God. This is me at my most certain.[/quote]
Have you ever studied biology? Are you aware of how mind-buggeringly complex even some of the most simple creatures are? It's just impossible that this happened by coincidence.[/quote]

No, the atoms we are made of were not created in the centre of our solar system. They were created by fusion inside stars which blew up, scattering common elements like oxygen and carbon, as well as heavy metals. These atoms then condensed together to form the sun and the planets. I see no where in this process, or anywhere in the following 4.5 billion years where magic is necessary.

(Edit): Whoops, this post wasn't supposed to look like this. Where have the quote boxes gone?

 

[HeartAttackBob]

...I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, and I'm not sure what you just said, but I hope it's not that Atheists are smarter than religious?

You are quite correct that I was extremely careful Not to say that.

I will, however, say this:
On average, people who profess atheist and agnostic beliefs score higher on intelligence tests than those who profess devoutly religious beliefs. There are several scientific studies that have reached this conclusions through different methods. Here is one source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
I also linked some in my previous post, there are many more out there.

Keep in mind that the differences are between averages of large samples. Obviously, every single atheist is not more intelligent than every single religious person.

Thank you, Cavouku, for the response. I hope this clarifies what I was saying.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

you CANT actually mean what you just said
what about santa, or the tooth fairy, or the flying spaghetti monster

when two sides are arguing, the answer does NOT, by default, lies somewhere in the middle
its quite possible for one side to be plain wrong

Of course one side is wrong, there is always one side that's wrong when it comes to an arguement. Doesn't mean that that the answer's obvious though.

This is especialy true when arguing about whether or not something (such as God or Dragons) exist. How can you actually prove that they don't exist? If they don't exist then there's no proof that they don't exist, so it's impossible to actually prove that they don't exist.

the claim that god exist demands proof to verify such a claim
an so long as such proof does not exist, there is no requirement to dis-prove it
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

But so does the claim that God doesn't exist.

Whilst there is no requirement to dis-prove the idea of God's existance, it still doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.

Whilst your arguement is a valid one, it is also one that can be turned on itself.

how can it be turned on itself when it doesnt actually exist in the first place

the argument that there IS a god is the more complex and specific one
since it implys that there IS a god, that he is responsible for the existence of everything, and that he complies with at least ONE of the worlds faiths (cares about sins, answer's prays, etc)
the act of denying this argument is NOT an argument at all
it is simply a DENIAL of an argument

so long as the burden of proof has not been lifted, the benifit of assumption lies with those who say that there ISNT a god
simply because they arent arguing anything, they simply deny a specific argument that the deists make

Denial of an arguement is an arguement in itself, as you're arguing that the arguement isn't true.

Also, people do argue against the existance of God [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God], what have you been doing on this thread?

 

[HeartAttackBob]

I said 6, but I don't know there is no God(s) the same way I don't know there is no tooth fairy, santa claus, invisible pink flying unicorn behind me etc. So.... Hell, all I really know is that I think, therefore I am. Outside of that, I cannot know anything for certain, like if the universe really exists.

I like this one. Reminds me of a great line from the old game Alpha Centauri:

"We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time? Or even All the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or loose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?" -Project Hero, Specimen 46, Vat 7. Activity record 2302-22467. Termination of Specimen advised.

Such sweet, sweet irony.

 

[Kriptonite]

I'm like a 5.7 but said 6. Who am I to say weather there is or isn't a god(depending on what 'god' means to you)? I personally don't think there is one, but like I said, I have only a 50% chance of being right.

Actually you have a 50% chance of being right. However if you were a theist you'd have a much smaller chance. Taken all the religions, all the branches of those religions, and the chance that the deity is from a religion we don't yet have....their chance plummets.

Huh, I never really thought about that. You are right. Once you start ruling out possibilities based on what you(not you specifically) DO believe, the chances that you haven't eliminated what there is(assuming there IS a 'god' for this) start severely lacking.

 

[bladeofdarkness]

you CANT actually mean what you just said
what about santa, or the tooth fairy, or the flying spaghetti monster

when two sides are arguing, the answer does NOT, by default, lies somewhere in the middle
its quite possible for one side to be plain wrong

Of course one side is wrong, there is always one side that's wrong when it comes to an arguement. Doesn't mean that that the answer's obvious though.

This is especialy true when arguing about whether or not something (such as God or Dragons) exist. How can you actually prove that they don't exist? If they don't exist then there's no proof that they don't exist, so it's impossible to actually prove that they don't exist.

the claim that god exist demands proof to verify such a claim
an so long as such proof does not exist, there is no requirement to dis-prove it
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

But so does the claim that God doesn't exist.

Whilst there is no requirement to dis-prove the idea of God's existance, it still doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.

Whilst your arguement is a valid one, it is also one that can be turned on itself.

how can it be turned on itself when it doesnt actually exist in the first place

the argument that there IS a god is the more complex and specific one
since it implys that there IS a god, that he is responsible for the existence of everything, and that he complies with at least ONE of the worlds faiths (cares about sins, answer's prays, etc)
the act of denying this argument is NOT an argument at all
it is simply a DENIAL of an argument

so long as the burden of proof has not been lifted, the benifit of assumption lies with those who say that there ISNT a god
simply because they arent arguing anything, they simply deny a specific argument that the deists make

Denial of an arguement is an arguement in itself, as you're arguing that the arguement isn't true.

Also, people do argue against the existance of God [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God], what have you been doing on this thread?

a denial is not in itself an argument

but if you would choose to view it as such, then it would still be a stronger argument by the sheer fact that it is a non-specific one
the argument that god exists is a specific argument, which includes claims beyond mearly it exists
it claims that its responsibe for the creation of all things, that that it takes an active interest in human affairs
so whatever probability you assign to his existence, you also have to multiply it by the probability of the other facts
for example
1)god exists (50% chance that he exists, and 50% chance that he doesnt)
2)god created the world (50% chance)
3)god takes an interest in humans (50% chance)
but since you need all THREE of thses things to exist (to apply the faith based view) then you have to multiply 1 X 2 X 3 = 12.5% (50% x 50% x 50%)
the meaning that the chance that god (as faith views it)exists is only 12.5%
but the 50% chance that he doesnt exist automaticlly cancels out the other fields (if he doesnt exists, by default the others dont apply)

 

[Zombie_Fish]

a denial is not in itself an argument

but if you would choose to view it as such, then it would still be a stronger argument by the sheer fact that it is a non-specific one
the argument that god exists is a specific argument, which includes claims beyond mearly it exists
it claims that its responsibe for the creation of all things, that that it takes an active interest in human affairs
so whatever probability you assign to his existence, you also have to multiply it by the probability of the other facts
for example
1)god exists (50% chance that he exists, and 50% chance that he doesnt)
2)god created the world (50% chance)
3)god takes an interest in humans (50% chance)
but since you need all THREE of thses things to exist (to apply the faith based view) then you have to multiply 1 X 2 X 3 = 12.5% (50% x 50% x 50%)
the meaning that the chance that god (as faith views it)exists is only 12.5%
but the 50% chance that he doesnt exist automaticlly cancels out the other fields (if he doesnt exists, by default the others dont apply)

But the argement against God claims that everything is coincidental.

What are the chances of a universe getting created by coincidence?
Multiply that by the chances of Earth being created by coincidence, and then the chances of evolution occuring and the human species becoming the dominant race by coincidence, and what would be the larger probability?